Bono still pacifist?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BassTrap82

The Fly
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
276
Location
Roosendaal (Holland)
Now a serious thread from me:wink: :

Is Bono still be a pacifist? I mean in the beginning of the eighties he was waving with wite flags etc. (think of "War").
But now he's meeting George Bush for example, and you don't hear him or U2 so much anymore on war topics etc.

I didn't found out where Bono stood on the Irak-matter.

So? Anyone?
 
Bono isn't a pacifist anymore. I think Bosnia changed his mind about the concept of a "just war", that is, that there is such a thing as a "just war" in the first place. He supported the military action in Bosnia, and then Kosovo, and then Afghanistan after 9/11, but notably he opposed the war in Iraq. This is sort of my own political history as well. I was a pacifist before Bosnia; I'm not now, I think there is such a thing as a just war.
 
BassTrap82 said:
Now a serious thread from me:wink: :

Is Bono still be a pacifist? I mean in the beginning of the eighties he was waving with wite flags etc. (think of "War").
But now he's meeting George Bush for example, and you don't hear him or U2 so much anymore on war topics etc.

I didn't found out where Bono stood on the Irak-matter.

So? Anyone?

Why do you wnat to know? So that if he does believe in "just wars", you can start hating him and treat him with contempt and disgust like the contempt and disgust you have shown for Americans and others who believe in just wars?
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Bono still pacifist?

80sU2isBest said:


Why do you wnat to know? So that if he does believe in "just wars", you can start hating him and treat him with contempt and disgust like the contempt and disgust you have shown for Americans and others who believe in just wars?

80s, that was uncalled for. Give BassTrap a chance. I understand that some of his previous posts were inappropriate, but everyone is allowed to change, learn, and ask questions.

Thanks.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bono still pacifist?

pax said:


80s, that was uncalled for. Give BassTrap a chance. I understand that some of his previous posts were inappropriate, but everyone is allowed to change, learn, and ask questions.

Thanks.

Pax, I like you, and I mean no offense, but I respectfully disagree that my statement was uncalled for, and I disagree that his posts were merely "inappropriate". He went on quite a tear against everyone who doesn't agree and even voice his wish that President Bush would be assassinated. I think the guy should be banned. The rest of us don't behave in that manner.
 
I like you too, 80s, and I'm glad you came back to FYM.

The problem with BassTrap has been dealt with.

All I ask is that you not dredge up incidents from the past and try to approach other posters respectfully. I've read his posts and I agree that they were (wildly) inappropriate, but let's not escalate the conflict.

Thanks.
 
Re: Re: Bono still pacifist?

80sU2isBest said:
So that if he does believe in "just wars", you can start hating him and treat him with contempt and disgust like the contempt and disgust you have shown for Americans and others who believe in just wars?

I'm curious how many people understand the origin of the term "just war." It actually is a specific concept by St. Augustine and expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas. Here's what the latter wrote about it (in typical confusing Catholic intellectualism):

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "

But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.

But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

Aquinas is rightfully one of the greatest theologians of his day, even if much of his reasoning was later disproven by science. But hey...he did the best he could with what he had to work with.

Melon
 
pax said:
I like you too, 80s, and I'm glad you came back to FYM.

The problem with BassTrap has been dealt with.

All I ask is that you not dredge up incidents from the past and try to approach other posters respectfully. I've read his posts and I agree that they were (wildly) inappropriate, but let's not escalate the conflict.

Thanks.

I will do all that you ask. I'll have to stay away from him completely.
 
Do Miss America said:
I think the recording of Marvin Gaye's 'What's Goin On' and songs like 'Love and Peace or Else' should answer your question.



Stephen Stills' "For What It's Worth."
 
Bono is a professed man of faith correct? So what does the bible say about a pacifist? or regarding a just war?

"Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
Romans 13 3-5

Have you ever considered that Bono may be learning the nessesity of this scripture according to his faith, in a world full of gregarious people, that NEED to be governed?
 
Oh great, another selective Bible quoter. Just what we need around here.

Incidentally Mr Temblor, if your son misbehaved would you take him to the city gates to be stoned to death, as it says in the Bible?
 
Last edited:
MadelynIris said:
I don't Bono ever was a pacifist. I'm pretty sure he has the highest number of fights among the band.


I agree. In fact, I couldda sworn that somewhere he actually said he wasn't a pacifist, at least not in the popularly accepted understanding of the term. I think he wanted to show the distinction between himself and the vague, hippy, peace-'n-love types.

Bono maybe a great humanitarian, but I don't think he's one to just turn the other cheek either.
 
Matthew Temblor said:
"Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." Romans 13 3-5

Have you ever considered that Bono may be learning the nessesity of this scripture according to his faith, in a world full of gregarious people, that NEED to be governed?

St. Paul was summarily rewarded with his writing there by being executed by the Romans. His own death is a glaring example of the abuses of the death penalty.

Melon
 
Matthew Temblor said:
"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
Romans 13 3-5

Sounds like a cowards' charter. On that basis was the French resistance during the Second World War wrong? After all, they failed to submit to the Nazi authorities.

I like the description of Jesus that Iron Horse sometimes uses on here in his posts - "that rebel from Nazareth".

In terms of the original question, I would tend to agree with those who said Bono was never a true 'pacifist'. I'm sure if his family was attacked, he would defend them for example.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it could depend on what you mean by pacifism in the first place. Political pacificism? I think Bono was politically pacifist in the '80's and then the Bosnia thing reared its ugly head and changed alot of people's concept of a just war. It was a just war, thus I could no longer be a complete pacifist because Milosevic had to be stopped.
 
Bono says in the new Assayas book that he realized he was unequivocally NOT a pacifist in the days following the birth of his first child, and the discovery of his passionate, protective feelings towards her helplessness. It was then that he understood why people go to war. (He talks about this at length in that book. I can't find the quote right now, but if I have time I will post it later.)
He has also said many times that he has never found it easy to turn the other cheek, that what he finds attractive and admirable in Ghandi and Jesus and Dr. King is that he is so lacking himself in that regard.
 
biff said:
Bono says in the new Assayas book that he realized he was unequivocally NOT a pacifist in the days following the birth of his first child, and the discovery of his passionate, protective feelings towards her helplessness. It was then that he understood why people go to war. (He talks about this at length in that book. I can't find the quote right now, but if I have time I will post it later.)
He has also said many times that he has never found it easy to turn the other cheek, that what he finds attractive and admirable in Ghandi and Jesus and Dr. King is that he is so lacking himself in that regard.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to get to earlier. That and the fact that he's supposedly known for having a lethal head-butt.
 
Financeguy,
Thanks for your rapid response.
umm no, I would not stone my own son or any other for that matter. Mainly because Christians have not lived "under the Law" of the "Old testiment" for two thousand years.
My comment's were specificly related to a person (Bono) that has professed his faith. You have not stated whether you are a person of faith in Christ. If not, I would not expect you to understand or agree with me.

Melon,
Facing execution or not, submitting to the authoritys is the teaching to believers. Paul was not the only one who followed Christ and faced execution because of it. It still happens today, many times everyday.
When Jesus was being arrested, facing crucifixion He said;
"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26: 53-54
He submitted to His OWN execution.

Some scriptures are often mis-stated or mis-interprited. For example Pink Floyd got one wrong when they wrote the lyrics for "Money" They wrote "Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today"
On the other hand U2 got it right in the song Desire....
"For the LOVE of money.."
Regarding "turning the other cheek". That scripture from Jesus is often mis-interprited. Jesus said if someone slaps you in the face, to "turn the other cheek" Yes.
Well, Two thousand years ago in that culture Slapping someone in the face was considered an insult. NOT an act of violence to harm someone.
Another note to that scripture is that He is talking to individual people, Believers in Him, to be precise.
He was NOT speaking to the Government or the earthly authoritys of men.

""Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ."
 
Matthew Temblor said:
Melon,
Facing execution or not, submitting to the authoritys is the teaching to believers. Paul was not the only one who followed Christ and faced execution because of it. It still happens today, many times everyday.
When Jesus was being arrested, facing crucifixion He said;
"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26: 53-54
He submitted to His OWN execution.

If we just "submitted to authority" since the NT era, we'd still be serfs and you'd never even know that the Bible existed, outside of some imperialist clerics shouting Latin at you--which you wouldn't understand. And democracy? Hah! It would be just a long-dead relic of Ancient Greece that would never have heard of. The kings, on the other hand, would be telling you that God put them there due to His will ("divine right of kings"), and then they'd say that the Bible says so. Since you would know no differently (the Bible was solely in the hands of clerics until the Protestant Reformation), you'd have submitted to their authority most certainly.

Melon
 
I have to agree with Melon. I think that submitting to authority only goes so far. If authority is contrary to God, civil disobedience is a virtue, I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom